Let's talk about the G6

[LukeFF]

GM-1 was for high-altitude bomber intercept missions over Western Europe. I highly doubt there were any G-6s sent to the East equipped as such.

Edited October 2, 2017 by LukeFF

[SCG_OpticFlow]

GM-1 was for high-altitude bomber intercept missions over Western Europe. I highly doubt there were any G-6s sent to the East equipped as such.

Indeed. Then the bulge stays I guess...

[Mac_Messer]

I also think so. In any other game I played il 2 1946 and WT the g6 was totally outclassed by its rival opponents. The issue is so big that from that time period I totally switch to the FW series.

 

Only the pe 2 crews will suffer a lot.

 

I remember when in the old game (il2 46) in a War mode the main fighter on the german side was the g6 vs la 5 fn, the losses were really massive. Loosing each campaign and each mission.

 

As for me the time period up to the battle of Cuban is where I want to dogfight. After that there are no real dogfights, as the Yak 3 and La 5 FN come into play the germans have nothing to oppose regarding pure dogfighting capabilities. The game becomes more schematic and predictable. Even when I am in a la 5fn when I outmaneuver a 109 I am not proud of it.

Uhuh. So you are one of those "G2 reserved pls leave slot!!!" guys. And then there are people who bite the bullet and select the "unwanted Gustav" and get some work done, like me. In IL2 1946 the later reworked G6 was decent. It could hold on its own. It requires flying discipline.

 

The late 1942 - late 1943 period was so far the most dramatic for the LW online crowds. From 1944 it is more evened out it seems. That is unless you see numerous P63.

[Mac_Messer]

I remember the IL-2 '46 G6 very well. Was this before or after they fixed the FM for it? Remember when it first came out for the game it was an absolute DOG. And not like ~10% 'worse' than a G2, it acted like a totally different aircraft. Never forgot the UBIzoo battles over the data Oleg and his team used to create the FM. Long story short I think they inadvertently used flight data from a Russian captured G6 that obviously was not 100%. 

 

After the FM was fixed for it, it wasn't that bad. Heavier than a G2, but was still very capable of beating contemporary Russian planes.

Oh sure, I remember. You got the guys up in TS. You loaded up the mission. You selected the G6 and flew to your absolute best teamwork and piloting abilities. Hard times but very interesting aswell.

[Mac_Messer]

Apparently it will have performance close to the 109 F-2 at low altitude, something like 520/530 top speed.

 

 

Compared to the 1.42 ata G-2 the G-6 downgrade in performance was really noticed in the 1943 missions. I always took the G-2 if both were available... the 30mm could vaporise enemy fighters with 1 or 2 hits but it had low ammo and the trajectory didn't help, so most of the time I prefered the 20mm. Also you had to fight against increased performance allied fighters (La-5FN, P-38J, P-39N/Q, Spit mk VIII) so mid-late 1943 LW pilots have to be more disciplined than before because they can't anymore dictate the fight in terms of speed, they have some climbrate advantage against some planes but not all of them.

You fly the F4, then the G2 you get easy kills. You get sloppy without even knowing it. Then you have to use the G6 which needs all your pilot abilities used to their full potential. For many pilots 3 kills with MK108 was not a rare sight. You can swipe an entire flight of 8 with just two of G6. It is a weapon of choice for sniper pilots.

The only very problematic fighters are the La5FN and Yak9 but can still be fought against with success.

 

Yak 9 mostly for the reason of being a newbie plane. The P39 not very dangerous if you don` get jumped by it, few people are able to fly it well.

Edited October 3, 2017 by Mac_Messer

[Mac_Messer]

To be fair, aren't we already in this situation, only reversed? It's not like the VVS had great options to compete with the 109s until the Yak-1b came along (and even then, it remains inferior, though by a much narrower margin).

 

I seriously doubt the G-6 will have things any worse than the VVS fighters have had for the last many years: if you start with the E advantage, or use good teamwork you will have a good chance to win, same as Yaks now do vs contemporary 109s and 190s. 

 

I guess the horizontal superiority of the Yaks/Spit does make things easier for the VVS when less skilled pilots are involved (which totally includes me, to be clear *grin*), because a 109 who lets things degenerate into a low level horizontal fight tends to get in real trouble even now. But good pilots know better than to let that happen, and there's no reason things will be any different with the G6... main difference is against the La 5FN their window of opportunity will be a lot narrower (because the FN will out E them eventually, at least at lower altitudes).

 

Maybe this is what you meant by the game becoming "more schematic"? That once the VVS reaches parity in performance, the LW is forced to stick strictly to BnZ in order to prevail, whereas now they can still afford to duke it out a bit before having to extend?

Yes, it is very interesting as the stance switches from hunter to hunted. If you alwys only want to win, you won`t like that. But still, there are many options.

 

The La5FN is the main problem, as it can perform very well on the deck and give 109 a run for its money even at higher altitudes. The Luftwaffles get very hard challenge in bombing and covering missions when faced with that particular Lavochkin. But if you stay coordinated and shoot well, you have big chance of success.

 

Lets face it, most LW online pilots are average. Most of the huge LW streaks made in 1941/1942 end in 1943. Most La5FN duels are losses for the 109G6 and I think in BoK it will be the same. But just as in a F4 from time to time you are shocked by a deadly Yak, the La5FN are shocked by a deadly G6. The thing is, pilot skill still plays a major role here.

 

So far all the 109/190 models made by 1C leave me confident that the 109G6 will get the FM it deserves. And good pilots will make a very good use of it.

[ITAF_Rani]

When Bf 109 G6 should be released?

Any idea about official skin related?

Hope an ANR skin could be present among the officials

[Field-Ops]

When Bf 109 G6 should be released?

 

Looks like the G6 development is just behind the P39 in our news by close to a month. So Id say early January since the 3 remaining BoK planes are supposed to come by December. 

[A_radek]

This will be a very fluffy post/thought as I can't give any reference or proof.

From all I've read I've gotten the impression the 109 was in comparison to other ww2 fighters a "floaty" aircraft. Meaning espite high wing loading it had a tendency pickup speed rather than sink. A pilot account I can't find again stated the 109 was easy too overshoot the runway with as it would just keep gliding. Same pilot wrote the 190 would sink like a brick as soon as throttle was chopped. I have no idea what 109 version this pilot was talking about.

The characteristic I'm clumsily trying to describe doesn't have much to do with performance such as max aoa, climbrate or kg/hp. But is more the character of the airframe.

So while the usual performance numbers went down I will find the devs intepretation of the G6 very interesting. In my humble opinion an airframe like this would be able to handle some weight increasement as in not shedding to much energy through higher speed maneuvers. And in some situations even take advantage of the extra fat.

[DB605]

I found it really funny when many people here are basing their expectations to old il2 or arcade games like WT and thinks there will be dramatic effects to turning etc.

 

Early G6 is basically G4 with 13mm mg's. That's it, weight difference to G4 is less than 50kg's. Top speed is around ~15km/h slower. No big dramas in FM's, just some more punch.

[Dutchvdm]

Maybe a bit offtopic, but does anyone know why they got rid of the retractable tailwheel in the G4 and G6?

 

Grt M

[JG27*Kornezov]

I found it really funny when many people here are basing their expectations to old il2 or arcade games like WT and thinks there will be dramatic effects to turning etc.

 

Early G6 is basically G4 with 13mm mg's. That's it, weight difference to G4 is less than 50kg's. Top speed is around ~15km/h slower. No big dramas in FM's, just some more punch.

Actually the old il 2 has quite an advanced FM, and WT in some regards is even better than BOS, for example modelling inertia (there you can have proper energy fights).

And sometimes it is not the FM that is the issue, but 2 metrics: wing loading and trust to weight ratio and those for the g6 go downhill.

[DB605]

Maybe a bit offtopic, but does anyone know why they got rid of the retractable tailwheel in the G4 and G6?

 

Grt M

 

Fatter tailwheel was needed for more rough field conditions and increased weight, it simply did not fit inside of the airframe anymore.

 

And sometimes it is not the FM that is the issue, but 2 metrics: wing loading and trust to weight ratio and those for the g6 go downhill.

Again, almost zero difference to G4 here.

Edited October 3, 2017 by DB605

[Asgar]

Actually the old il 2 has quite an advanced FM, and WT in some regards is even better than BOS, for example modelling inertia (there you can have proper energy fights).

And sometimes it is not the FM that is the issue, but 2 metrics: wing loading and trust to weight ratio and those for the g6 go downhill.

WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU! (i'm not gonna apologize for that capslock, it was needed)

WT is shit, and no, they're not modelling inertia correctly or better, they CAN'T model inertia because a/c in WT have NO MASS.

Edited October 3, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Asgar

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Let alone wing loading and TW ratio is to much simplification for compering AC aerodynamic performance in BOX FM fidelity.

[Pierre64]

At the difference of Friedrichs and early Gustavs, many G-6s (and later) had a "Spiralschnauze" (usually white on a black propeller haube).

Will the texture mapping of the incoming G-6 (and, who knows, later models ?) make easier the skinning of this typical part of this Bf 109 ?

[JG27*Kornezov]

WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU! (i'm not gonna apologize for that capslock, it was needed)

WT is shit, and no, they're not modelling inertia correctly or better, they CAN'T model inertia because a/c in WT have NO MASS.

I do not need you to apologize.

Do you understand what is the difference between zoom climb; sustained climb and maximum sustained climb? And how the mass of an aircraft affects its inertia?

In Warthunder when you have a p47 and a yak behind you (even 109) when you zoomclimb at high speed those planes run out of steam and cannot follow you. That is not working here where paper planes have almost infinite inertia.

Or after a dive for how long a yak is holding its speed?

I do not argue here that WT has a better FM. Far from that. I do argue a completely different point. Better FM means more possibilities; more possibilities mean also more possibilities to be completely wrong. That is why the community support for the game is so important. To make the game better and that takes a lot of effort, knowledge, time and money.

Edited October 3, 2017 by JG27_Kornezov

[=EXPEND=Tripwire]

Pretty sure there was a lengthy discussion in the FM forums resulting in findings that the zoomclimb effectiveness of planes in IL2 BOS are actually pretty close to reality and that other simulators got it wrong and exaggerated the effect?

[FTC_Riksen]

I do not need you to apologize.

Do you understand what is the difference between zoom climb; sustained climb and maximum sustained climb? And how the mass of an aircraft affects its inertia?

In Warthunder when you have a p47 and a yak behind you (even 109) when you zoomclimb at high speed those planes run out of steam and cannot follow you. That is not working here where paper planes have almost infinite inertia.

Or after a dive for how long a yak is holding its speed?

I do not argue here that WT has a better FM. Far from that. I do argue a completely different point. Better FM means more possibilities; more possibilities mean also more possibilities to be completely wrong. That is why the community support for the game is so important. To make the game better and that takes a lot of effort, knowledge, time and money.

Sorry but your argument became completly invalid when you mentioned War Thunder lol

[Jizzo]

Sorry but your argument became completly invalid when you mentioned War Thunder lol

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Pretty sure there was a lengthy discussion in the FM forums resulting in findings that the zoomclimb effectiveness of planes in IL2 BOS are actually pretty close to reality and that other simulators got it wrong and exaggerated the effect?

I think other Sims definetly exaggerated flight Characteristics for many Aircraft. 

 

And Vertical Acceleration is still 9.81 m/s² + Acceleration provided by Engine,  for all Aircraft in the World. 

 

And if the Aircraft can achieve similar Speeds to one another in the Horizontal there is little Reason to believe they couldn't follow one another in Dives. 

Edited October 3, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Klaus-Mann

[CIA_Yankee_]

The La5FN is the main problem, as it can perform very well on the deck and give 109 a run for its money even at higher altitudes. The Luftwaffles get very hard challenge in bombing and covering missions when faced with that particular Lavochkin. But if you stay coordinated and shoot well, you have big chance of success.

 

 

Speaking as one who's never played '46, and thus never experienced the La5FN, what makes the FN such a major threat, compared to our current La5?

 

I understand one of the main differences is that the FN can stay in boost mode indefinitely (or something close to it), but is that all? In my understanding the La5 is currently quite effective at 2000m and below because of that boost, but that generally limits it to shallow slashing attacks (come in at full speed then keep going, don't try to climb too much, or turn too much, otherwise the 109 will eventually get the advantage).

 

Not to derail the thread to much, but I'd appreciate the info.

 

Thank you.

[CIA_Yankee_]

This will be a very fluffy post/thought as I can't give any reference or proof.

 

From all I've read I've gotten the impression the 109 was in comparison to other ww2 fighters a "floaty" aircraft. Meaning espite high wing loading it had a tendency pickup speed rather than sink. A pilot account I can't find again stated the 109 was easy too overshoot the runway with as it would just keep gliding. Same pilot wrote the 190 would sink like a brick as soon as throttle was chopped. I have no idea what 109 version this pilot was talking about.

 

The characteristic I'm clumsily trying to describe doesn't have much to do with performance such as max aoa, climbrate or kg/hp. But is more the character of the airframe.

 

So while the usual performance numbers went down I will find the devs intepretation of the G6 very interesting. In my humble opinion an airframe like this would be able to handle some weight increasement as in not shedding to much energy through higher speed maneuvers. And in some situations even take advantage of the extra fat.

 

A lot of it comes down to the very high wingloading of the 109. 

 

I don't quite understand the mechanics behind it, but this means the 109 achieves good acceleration and speed (smaller wing and airframe means better thrust-to-weight ratio, perhaps?), but also sheds energy faster when in a turn (that part I don't quite know).

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Speaking as one who's never played '46, and thus never experienced the La5FN, what makes the FN such a major threat, compared to our current La5?

 

I understand one of the main differences is that the FN can stay in boost mode indefinitely (or something close to it), but is that all? In my understanding the La5 is currently quite effective at 2000m and below because of that boost, but that generally limits it to shallow slashing attacks (come in at full speed then keep going, don't try to climb too much, or turn too much, otherwise the 109 will eventually get the advantage).

 

Not to derail the thread to much, but I'd appreciate the info.

 

Thank you.

 

La-5: M-82 Engine with Overheat Troubles, so Emergency Power was limited to 5 Minutes. 

La-5F: M-82F Engine Overheat Troubles solved, Emergency Power could be used indefinetly. 

La-5FN: M-82FN Engine: Fuel Injection added, Individual Exhaust Ports instead of Collector Type, improved Cowling, Increased Power Output by about 150hp. 

 

However, the Power Gain above 1500m is negligible for La-5F and FN. It's Advantages are of a far more Practical Nature, like Cold Starting in Cold Weather and Carburettor Ice. Where there is no Carburettor there can't be Carburettor Ice. 

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Moreso the La-5 F amd FN got improved ailerouns which reduced stick load and made them more manouvrebel. Additionally the 3rd wing tank was removed reducing the range but also weight.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

A lot of it comes down to the very high wingloading of the 109. 

 

I don't quite understand the mechanics behind it, but this means the 109 achieves good acceleration and speed (smaller wing and airframe means better thrust-to-weight ratio, perhaps?), but also sheds energy faster when in a turn (that part I don't quite know).

The 109s Wing-Loading isn't that Dramatic. It's not very high. It ranges from 170 to 205 kg/m² for the F, G and K-Series, and 120 to 160 kg/m² for the A-E series. 

The Spitfire with normal Wing tips ranged anywhere from 125 to 150.

The Yaks sit at 160-180

The La-5s sit at 185 to 205.

Our Fw190s sit at around 215. 

P-40 is at 170+. 

 

The Bf109 is rather high up on that Range, however it does have Slats (Like a Fi-156 Storch) and Conventional Flaps which do a lot improve Low Speed Characteristics and delay the Stall to very low Speeds.  

The Bf109 had some of the more benign Stall Behaviours of Wartime Aircraft, Eric Winkle Brown compared it to the Hurricane. 

 

Am I right in the Guess someone has watched too much History Channel? Propaganda like "Dogfights" maybe?

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Moreso the La-5 F amd FN got improved ailerouns which reduced stick load and made them more manouvrebel. Additionally the 3rd wing tank was removed reducing the range but also weight.

There were a shitton of little Changes all over the Series, Armor Glass Thicknesses etc as well. 

[Finkeren]

Those extra horsepower make a big difference. Below 2000m the La-5FN is at least as fast as the Fw 190 and climbs almost as well as the Bf 109. Add to that better cockpit view, larger ammo supply, minor aerodynamic improvements, more effective control surfaces (though our La-5 may already have this) and you have an aircraft with the potential to mop the floor with the opposition at low level.

 

The main drawback of the La-5FN, as I see it, is the very limited fuel supply. IIRC a fully loaded La-5FN had an endurance of just 45mins on nominal power. Even on shorter missions a dogfight that drags out or, heaven forbid, a fuel leak could be catastrophic.

Edited October 3, 2017 by Finkeren

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Those extra horsepower make a big difference. Below 2000m the La-5FN is at least as fast as the Fw 190 and climbs almost as well as the Bf 109. Add to that better cockpit view, larger ammo supply, minor aerodynamic improvements, more effective control surfaces (though our La-5 may already have this) and you have an aircraft with the potential to mop the floor with the opposition at low level.

 

The main drawback of the La-5FN, as I see it, is the very limited fuel supply. IIRC a fully loaded La-5FN had an endurance of just 45mins on nominal power. Even on shorter missions a dogfight that drags out or, heaven forbid, a fuel leak could be catastrophic.

Yeah, in Battle it will last for 20 Mins. 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

The main drawback of the La-5FN, as I see it, is the very limited fuel supply. IIRC a fully loaded La-5FN had an endurance of just 45mins on nominal power. Even on shorter missions a dogfight that drags out or, heaven forbid, a fuel leak could be catastrophic.

Well, we have a month of surprises to look forward too, lets hope one of them is drop tanks? 

 

Edit: One can dream.

Edited October 3, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Custard

[Mac_Messer]

Speaking as one who's never played '46, and thus never experienced the La5FN, what makes the FN such a major threat, compared to our current La5?

 

You have to take into account how online play functions. Mostly same year aircraft variants. That means La5/F paired against 109F4/109G2 and La5FN paired against 109G6 (early).

As already said above, in IL2 1946 the 109G6 was a fair bit off the real specs (even with the reworked FM). That pretty much meant no advantages over the La5FN. Even if LW gets the 109G4  climbing and speed difference is no longer LW strength in 1943. You arrive at the combat area with no altitude advantage and cannot engage/disengage at will. Add to that most operations are at sub 3000m altitude and you have a hard challenge for the LW. I recall against La5FN your best bet was scissors but that counts much more for the FW190.

 

The jist of it is that as a LW pilot against La5FN you are no longer the one dictating the fight, and are rather forced into a classic dogfighting scenario which requires high pilot skill. IMO even in BoS/BoM LW aircraft are not newbie planes when compared to Yak 1/La5.

 

Going up against La5FN in a DF online fight I knew it was a 50/50 scenario. Compared to 1941/1942 campaigns it doesn`t feel good at first. Although that said IMO this kind of a challenge brings out the best in a virtual pilot and makes online flying more interesting for both sides.

[Finkeren]

Well, we have a month of surprises to look forward too, lets hope one of them is drop tanks?

 

Edit: One can dream.

I've never seen or heard mention of an La-5 using drop tanks. Do you have any sources on their use?

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

 

I've never seen or heard mention of an La-5 using drop tanks. Do you have any sources on their use?

 

I have not seen them on an La5 but the Lagg 3 seemed to use them?

 

[Finkeren]

I have not seen them on an La5 but the Lagg 3 seemed to use them?

 

I have seen a grand total of 2 photos of (early series) LaGGs with drop tanks. The one you posted is one, this is the other:

 

 

People who know more about the subject than me say, that these are images of experimental aircraft during trials in 1941 - never used operationally, but for some reason included in some flight sim version of the LaGG-3 and a load of scale model kits.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

 

People who know more about the subject than me say, that these are images of experimental aircraft during trials in 1941 - never used operationally, but for some reason included in some flight sim version of the LaGG-3 and a load of scale model kits. 0

 

I certainty don't know enough about the LA5  to know if drop tanks were or could be fitted. As for the Lagg-3, according to  (Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War, Vol. 1 Single-Engined Fighters ~Yefim Gordon and Dmitri Khazanov )

 

Page 38 It states " to overcome the lack of range drop tanks could be fitted."

[DB605]

 

 

MT-452 back in 2013, just to keep it in topic

 

 

MT-507, same year...

Edited October 3, 2017 by DB605

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

 

MT-425 back in 2013, just to keep it in topic

 

I see your picture and raise you a video  

 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Why does MT452 have Airfilters?

[DB605]

Why does MT452 have Airfilters?

 

All finnish G6's were fitted with filters because of very dusty nature of our airfields.

I see your picture and raise you a video  

 

 

Gotta love the sound...

[[TWB]dillon_biz]

I think other Sims definetly exaggerated flight Characteristics for many Aircraft.

 

And Vertical Acceleration is still 9.81 m/s² + Acceleration provided by Engine,for all Aircraft in the World.

 

And if the Aircraft can achieve similar Speeds to one another in the Horizontal there is little Reason to believe they couldn't follow one another in Dives.

Dive performance depends on a lot more than just 9.81m/s^2 + engine acceleration.